Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
29 lines (17 loc) · 2.65 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

29 lines (17 loc) · 2.65 KB

Brain-MRI-3D-Image-Classification

Dataset:

I have used the IXI Brain MRI dataset that each image has 150 slices and it is available here. I downloaded the T1 images and used 80% percent of them for training and 20% for test/validation. Since the data only contains 566 images I had to keep the test set at 20% and had to use the test set for both validation and test. Since the data has a high number of channels (150 channels) it could not be loaded into the RAM all at once, so for the training of the first model, I created a data generator that yields 4 images at a time. I used Nibabel library for reading the .nii images in this dataset.

Model:

I tested 3 different models for this classification task:

  • DenseNet169_3D
  • DenseNet121_2D
  • DenseNet169_2D

The first Model can be downloaded from this repository, and the two others are available through TensorFlow. The 3D model was trained from scratch while the two others had pretrained weights.

Challenges:

  • The images in this dataset have a high number of channels and processing them requires a huge amount of RAM and GPU
  • Using 3D convolutions requires more GPU and they are the calculations are more time consuming
  • Lack of example projects regarding feeding .nii files to Keras models on the internet and the use of 3D networks

Results:

The 3D model used 80 slices from 150 (slices 35 to 115), the 2D models with 3 slices (slices 74,75,76) and 1 slice from 150 slices. The 3D model reached 93% on the training set and 93% on the test set. However, DenseNet121 with 3 channels managed to reach 94% on the training set and 92% on the test set, DenseNet121 with one channel 96% on trianing and 93% on test, and DenseNet169 96% on the training set and 92% on the test set. The results of the two 2D convNets can be improved by using regularization techniques. Moreover, I discovered using augmentations such as rotation, zoom, shift, etc makes the results worse and cause undefitting in DenseNet121_2D.

Conclusion:

All three of the models achieve nearly the same results, however the 3D model takes much more time (90 minutes), and resources (15 Gb of GPU) to train, while the 2D models are trained in about 5 minutes with only 5 Gb of GPU, this indicates the importance of pretraining when the dataset is small. We can always first try to use few slices like the 1 median slice with simpler models and if the reuslts are not satisfying, move to more complicated models with more slices. In this project, it appears the most important channel was channel 75 and using that one channel was enough to reach decent results.